Has my UK property had its 10 year inspection performed correctly?

[davesparks]

Also there is the general guidance that Installations installed to an earlier edition of BS7671 are not necessarily unsafe.

Exactly, 'not necessarily' this does not mean that installations must only ever be judged by the standard they were installed to.

What it means is that some things will not comply with current regulations but do not affect safety and so are not coded, other things which do not comply with current regulations do affect safety and are coded.

Red and black conductors does not comply but does not affect safety so no code.
Lack of RCD protection to domestic light fittings does not comply but does affect safety so is coded.

 

[Teddy Lop]

If I'm reading that right whoever did the original install shouldn't have used TNC-S earthing at that reading so I guess the latest tester is assuming it should be treated as/converted to TT?

Regs are not retro-active in the same way an old car doesn't need ABS to be considered safe but any new work must be to the latest standard.

 

[loz2754]

cables are concealed and buried to a depth of less than 50mm and do not have RCD protection, I am afraid that is a C2

In the Best Practice Guide that's a C3. In Napit Codebreakers it's a C2.

 

[littlespark]

If it was compliment at the time of install, but not up to most recent regs now, then it’s C3: improvement recommended.

Something tested just a few years ago with no rcd on lights wouldn’t be coded… but now would bring a C3…. For example.


I think the OPs issue has been either a very lapse previous EICR which hasn’t been done properly, combined with an over zealous recent engineer…. Resulting in a massive difference of opinions.

 

[Froggie]

Looks like a resonably thorough & competent EICR to me.
I'd have given a C2 for lack of RCD's due to the absence of supplementary bonding in the bathroom if I had high enough resistance between exposed conductive parts to prevent limiting touch voltages. Your 2014 EICR may also have been conducted properly if you've had work undertaken in bathrooms subsequently.
Ultimately it comes down to engineering judgement on the part of the inspector but I feel that they'd be pretty remiss not to give a C2 for an issue that, in the event of a fault, could potentially result in a fatality.

 

[PS Electrics]

In the Best Practice Guide that's a C3. In Napit Codebreakers it's a C2.

NAPIT contributed to that but seemingly the consensus must have disagreed!

 

[mainline]

Looks like a resonably thorough & competent EICR to me.
I'd have given a C2 for lack of RCD's due to the absence of supplementary bonding in the bathroom if I had high enough resistance between exposed conductive parts to prevent limiting touch voltages. Your 2014 EICR may also have been conducted properly if you've had work undertaken in bathrooms subsequently.
Ultimately it comes down to engineering judgement on the part of the inspector but I feel that they'd be pretty remiss not to give a C2 for an issue that, in the event of a fault, could potentially result in a fatality.

Would you agree with all the other c2 s that he's given.

 

[newfutile]

the trouble with BS7671 is we are told to test to the latest edition.but we have no weighting or severity of how bad each failure to meet current regs is, the version its installed to make little difference other than to see if they did a good job at the time.
we mostly all agree that (RCD) Residual Current Device for sockets likely to be used outside are a C2,but how do you code lack of Arc Fault Detection Device in a care home?
light have always been a strange one as there is a C1 on most pendants and only recently has domestic lighting required (RCD) Residual Current Device .
part p was brought in for buried cables now we have electrical safety first and Napit who code differently for lack of (RCD) Residual Current Device here.

i always expected GN3 to give definitive coding but it does not.
while its left to each inspectors opinion we will always get different reports.

 

[brianmoooore]

We test to the latest edition, and this is part of the latest edition "An installation which was designed to an earlier edition of the Regulations and which does not fully comply with the current edition is not necessarily unsafe for continued use, or requires upgrading. Only damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, which may give rise to danger, should be recorded."

 

[Oldskool]

I did some research, and contacted the NICEIC, and they’ve provided some guidance and advice in the form of Best Practices Guide 4-7.1. They’ve advised;

“the requirements of BS7671 are not retrospectively applied to older installations, except in instances for lack of RCD protection for sockets that have the potential for items to be plugged in and used outside. “

“30mA RCD protection for sockets and cables in walls was introduced in BS7671:2008 (17th edition)”

“If the inspector chooses to deviate against the suggested codes that are given in the document, we would not endorse the coding decision, and it would be up to the inspector alone to justify their outcomes. “



So as far as I can tell

BS7671:2008 came into force 01-Jul-2008 for installations designed after this date. My installation certificate is dated 08-Jul-08, so deigns were done as per plans submitted in 2007 as per 16th edition.

BPG4-7.1

Pg 16 confirms RCD protection for mobile equipment are coded C2

Pg 19 confirms all other RCD points are coded C3

• No idea yet what recourse I have but I will be making a complaint to the NICEIC if my report is not put right as per guidance

I should be able to rectify by installation of a single RCD supplying outside. There is one, but it’s 50A, when should be 40A apparently.

 

[mainline]

I should be able to rectify by installation of a single RCD supplying outside. There is one, but it’s 50A, when should be 40A apparently.

A 50amp RCD would be the carrying capacity, downgrading it to a 40amp would make it a pointless change.

Maybe you meant RCBO ?.

 

[westward10]

I did some research, and contacted the NICEIC, and they’ve provided some guidance and advice in the form of Best Practices Guide 4-7.1. They’ve advised;

“the requirements of BS7671 are not retrospectively applied to older installations, except in instances for lack of RCD protection for sockets that have the potential for items to be plugged in and used outside. “

“30mA RCD protection for sockets and cables in walls was introduced in BS7671:2008 (17th edition)”

“If the inspector chooses to deviate against the suggested codes that are given in the document, we would not endorse the coding decision, and it would be up to the inspector alone to justify their outcomes. “



So as far as I can tell

BS7671:2008 came into force 01-Jul-2008 for installations designed after this date. My installation certificate is dated 08-Jul-08, so deigns were done as per plans submitted in 2007 as per 16th edition.

BPG4-7.1

Pg 16 confirms RCD protection for mobile equipment are coded C2

Pg 19 confirms all other RCD points are coded C3

• No idea yet what recourse I have but I will be making a complaint to the NICEIC if my report is not put right as per guidance

I should be able to rectify by installation of a single RCD supplying outside. There is one, but it’s 50A, when should be 40A apparently.

Nothing to do with the NICEIC as they only give guidance they cannot force you to Code as they see fit. It clearly states it would be up to the inspector alone to justify their outcomes, they cannot make them change it unless they felt their Coding was too lenient.

 

[Oldskool]

I realise NECEIC cannot force an inspector to change a report. However, the NICEIC provide accreditation to electricians, which recognises that they are qualified to perform a particular activity. If an electrician is not able to follow established industry recognised guidelines laid down by the accreditation body, and arbitrarily applies his own opinion to a report that a client requests, expecting it to performed to those industry recognised standards, then that electrician should no longer be accredited by that body.
If there is no mechanism to ensure consistency of standards or remove accreditation if deviation cannot be justified, it makes a mockery of accreditation and renders it meaningless.

 

[loz2754]

I realise NECEIC cannot force an inspector to change a report. However, the NICEIC provide accreditation to electricians, which recognises that they are qualified to perform a particular activity. If an electrician is not able to follow established industry recognised guidelines laid down by the accreditation body, and arbitrarily applies his own opinion to a report that a client requests, expecting it to performed to those industry recognised standards, then that electrician should no longer be accredited by that body.
If there is no mechanism to ensure consistency of standards or remove accreditation if deviation cannot be justified, it makes a mockery of accreditation and renders it meaningless.

And there you have accurately summed up the current state of the industry, which many of us find frustrating.

 

[Oldskool]

We live in an age of ever increasing administrative burden, that is facilitated by more and more paperwork that's easy to generate from software. eg. I am now expected to read literally 89 pages of literature to obtain thatch insurance, which is all designed to trip me up and avoid paying out. It's insane, yet what can i do?

I'd suggest you write to the NICEIC with your frustrations, and examples of incidents that create those frustrations. If nobody provides feedback, they think all is rosy and continue to roll out ever more complex guidelines that many cannot, or will not interpret correctly. It's the consumer who suffers and pays more in the end, for very little value or gain, and that affects us all, when we could be spending our money on things that truly benefit us all, or paying more tax without feeling the pinch.....

putting my soapbox away now...lol